This
letter shows Jefferson thought the constitutional division
between federal and state powers, as well as the First
Amendment, prevented him from issuing a proclamation
setting aside a day for fasting and thanksgiving. First,
the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers
not delegated to the federal government. No power whatsoever
to regulate religious matters had been delegated to
the federal government. Thus, any authority to do so,
if such authority exists, must rest with the states.
The concept expressed in this letter is significant
because it contributes to Jefferson's thoughts on the
degree of separation between church and state. As explained
in the introduction to the Danbury Baptist letter, the
Supreme Court relied heavily on Jefferson's thoughts
regarding this subject in the Everson v. Bd. of Educ.
decision. In the majority opinion, the Court portrays
Jefferson as an absolutist. Although he may have interpreted
the constitutional restraints on governmental interference
more narrowly than some of his contemporaries, Jefferson
was by no means an absolutist. As this letter indicates,
Jefferson opposed any federal regulation of religious
matters. As to whether he opposed state government regulation
of religion is less clear, but his letter does express
his understanding that if the authority to regulate
religious matters can be placed in the hands of men,
it must be done at the state level.

Second,
Jefferson argues that the restraints of the First Amendment
prevent him from making a national proclamation. Regardless
of the issuance of proclamations by his predecessors,
Jefferson's personal feeling is that the Constitution
proscribed such activities. Although the proclamation
merely suggests to the nation that it pause from its
activities to fast and give thanks to the Supreme Being
on an appointed day, the activities suggested are specific
forms of religious conduct. Furthermore, Jefferson fears
public reproval of all who choose not to observe this
suggested conduct. Fasting and thanksgiving are religious
activities whose purpose and observance should be left
to each religious sect. A government official, especially
the President of the United States, has no business
interfering with religious beliefs by issuing a national
proclamation.

Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Religious Institutions Group

Washington,
Jan. 23, 1808

SIR,--I
have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful
to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable
to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized
to comply with. I consider the government of the U S. as
interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with
religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or
exercises. This results not only from the provision that
no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free
exercise, or religion, but from that also which reserves
to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly
no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume
authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to
the general government. It must then rest with the states,
as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only
proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a
day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly
assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises
which the Constitution has directly precluded them from.
It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry
some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on
those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment,
but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion.
And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the
recommendation the less a law of conduct for those
to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest
of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its
exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the
religious societies that the general government should be
invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time
or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious
exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every
religious society has a right to determine for itself the
times for these exercises, & the objects proper for
them, according to their own particular tenets; and this
right can never be safer than in their own hands, where
the constitution has deposited it.

I
am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted.
But I have ever believed that the example of state executives
led to the assumption of that authority by the general government,
without due examination, which would have discovered that
what might be a right in a state government, was a violation
of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may,
every one must act according to the dictates of his own
reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have
been given to the President of the U S. and no authority
to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.